PRODUCTION F ACILITY IMPROVEMENT Replacement eplacement Monorail Mono rail Desi Design gn Summary um mary Lanxess Corporation Report No.: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Data:22-Aug-2013 Issue 1
DOCUMENT ISSUE CONTROL SHEET Issue
Rev.
Date
Comment
1
0
8/15/13
2
1
8/22/13 Appendix D added to address address updated client data (i.e., corrections to layout of existing structure and a lower crane WLL)
Issued to client to client review
Written
Checked
App roved
TNT
KPP
ST
TNT
KPP
KPP
3 4 5
Notice This report was produced by Total Crane Services for the Lanxess Corporation for the specific purpose of the Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary. This report may not be used by any person other than the Lanxess Corporation without the Lanxess Corporation's express permission. permission. In any event, Total Crane Services, Services, its affiliates, and partners accept accept no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon the contents of this report by any person other than Lanxess Corporation.
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
Production Facility Improvement Replacement Monorail Design Summary
A report prepared by
Pope Oil Tool Company
commissioned by
Total Crane Service
to be prepared on behalf of the
Lanxess Corporation
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE
Total Crane Servic es
Lanxess Corporatio n
14060 IH-10 West Orange, TX 77632 USA
8500 West Bay Road Baytown, TX 77523 USA
Tel:
+1 409-842-1500
Tel:
+1 281-383-6800
Fax:
+1 409-842-1085
Fax:
+1 281-383-6808
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 2
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
Contents Section 1
Page Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
1.1
General ............................................................................................................................................ 4
1.2
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2
Design Description ..................................................................................................................... 5
3
Design Approach........................................................................................................................5 3.1
Design Data ..................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2
Design Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 5
4
Calculation Summary ................................................................................................................. 8 4.1
General ............................................................................................................................................ 8
4.2
Beam Design.................................................................................................................................... 8
4.3
Connection Design ........................................................................................................................... 8
4.4 Assessment Screening of Support Structure ................................................................................... 8 5
References ................................................................................................................................. 9
Appendi ces Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 3
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General This report presents the design philosophy and summarizes the calculations undertaken in support of the monorail crane beam design package presented in monorail design drawing [1].
1.2 Background The Lanxess Corporation (Lanxess) has commissioned Total Crane Services, LTD (Total Crane) to design, procure, and install a replacement monorail crane at Lanxess’ Baytown production facility. The monorail crane unit being replaced was identified to have an inadequate working load limit (WLL1) with respect to the service loads it was required to handle. Lanxess has instructed Total Crane to provide a replacement monorail crane beam having a WLL equal to 2.5 tons (5,000 lbs). Total Crane was given further instruction regarding specific design constraints that should be meet by the new crane beam design (i.e., design constrains). Specifically, two particular design constraints were encountered in the monorail beam design and warrant a discussion herein. The first design constraint set restrictions on which available cross-sectional shapes (and sizes) were applicable as potential monorail sections. It was stated that the new monorail crane beam should be of an appropriate size and shape to allow the reuse of hoist and ruining hardware installed on the redundant crane beam (i.e., the new monorail beam should not require the purchase of new running hardware). This criterion caused the types of potential crane beam cross-sections considered to be reduced down to effectively one type of section (an S-section) and only a small array of section depths and widths. Moreover, material strength no longer became an option as S-beams are generally exclusively rolled from A36 steel. The second design constraint was caused from the anticipated restriction on hot-work in the region of the new crane beam installation. This, of course, meant that any welding/burning/cutting and etcetera would required this treatment elsewhere and, more importantly, provisions would need to be developed regarding and pre-welding and also how to install the beam using sole mechanical fastening. The restrictions noted above are actually not extraordinary nor particularly challenging or complex. They have, however, had a direct impact on the beam crane beam design. For this reason they have been referenced here for that reason.
1
In the context of the present report the Working Load Limit (WLL) may be interpreted as the crane’s “rated” lifting capacity applied to “the hook”.
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 0 Issue Date: 8/15/2013
Page 4
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
2 DESIGN DESCRIPTION The monorail crane design outlined in [1] can be summarized into the following structural sub-groups:
Structure Associated with the Crane Beam
Components Associated with the Connections
Details & Miscellaneous (e.g. the bolts, supporting structure)
The crane beam (monorail) consists of a 16 ft long S10x35 capped by a C10x25 channel section (via a fillet welded continuous until beam ends). The channel cap is cut a bit shorter that the S-beam for the purpose of allowing proper placement and termination of fillet welds and to also reduce the congestion of steel components terminating at the crane beam end regions. The nature of the loads anticipated, likely service duty, and geometric layout of surrounding steel elements lend themselves to allow the a double angle shear connections that are bolted to web of the in W12x45 and initially shop welded to the web of the S10x35 crane section. The cross-section of the composite section is presented in Figure 3.2.
3 DESIGN A PPROACH 3.1 Design Data Relatively limited data was available to develop the replacement monorail design. Available design data can be summarized by the following:
Dimensional details were obtained through surveys
WLL = 5,000 lbs (2.5 ton)
From client discussions it was gathered that the crane would be used very infrequently and only be experience some 0 t0 5 service cycles per annum. The crane’s design load spectrum is extremely narrow. It centers around 2.5 ton (or its target lifted load). The load spectrum would be expected to have some minimal scatter and be completely of very heavily biased towards loads above the 2.5 ton (see Figure 3.2)
3.2 Design Objectives Considering the data noted in Section 3.1, and the idealized load spectrum presented in design approached to consider the following: 1.
The monorail will not be explicitly design for fatigue (low cycles); however, design details will inherently consider fatigue issues.
2.
Beam end connections need only resist shear loading (and some small tension loads). The cranes low cycle operational nature means that these connections can resist loads through bearing of the bolts (i.e., slip critical connections not required).
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 5
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
3.
Considering the crane load is only about 5 kips, end support sections (W12 sections) should be adequate to distribute thee monorail’s reaction forces. Simple checks are only needed to verify the beams are not nearing the elastic limit.
4.
The hook load variability is low and it will be mainly subjected to a single well known weight (lifting a valve). Some additional loads in the high impulsive range would be expected if the crane is used to pull a “stuck” valve out of place (as noted by the client). Considering this the crane beam should be robust and easily resist just load characteristics.
5.
The beam section must be an S type (similar dimensions to a S10x25) to allow it to fit the existing hoisting hardware. As a larger S section may present issues fitting with the existing equipment, a channel cap was adopted to add substantial robustness to the section strength in both the in an out-of-plan loading directions (see Figure 3.2).
Likely Biased to the hi end due to potential impulsive loads caused by “jerking the valve loose)
P (LL ≥ 2.5) =~100% High Probability
P (LL)
Decreasing Load
Increasing Load
Low Probability 2.5 ton (Weight of Valve)
Lifted Load Value (LL)
Figure 3.1 – Lifted Load Spectrum Considered in Design Approach
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 6
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
(a)
(b) Figure 3.2 – Composite Section Considered for (a) Engineering Calculations and (2) Detailing Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 7
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
4 C ALCULATION SUMMARY 4.1 General The following sections highlight some of the design checks and engineering calculations undertaken in support of the monorail design. Each of the below subsections has a correlating Appendix. Each appendix includes a set of calculation sheets. Great care has been taken to present these calculations and the associated results in a matter that is clear and easy to follow.
4.2 Beam Design th
Appendix A includes the checks and inputs used to verify the crane bea m design using AISC (9 ed) and CMAA (2010 Ed) code checks. Details associated with the beam’s cross section were developed in CAD software and verified elsewhere. The composite section properties were then manually input into the calculations. The resulting data indicates that the capped crane beam easily handles the 2.5 ton lifted load. Inspection of the safety factors indicates the section has a large degree of residual lifting capacity. This of course was anticipated for reasons noted in Section 3.2.
4.3 Connection Design In Appendix B the double angle shear tabs are checked against the crane beam end forces. Code checks th are per AISC 9 Ed. The sections considered in the design are quite robust to begin with and are not highly utilized.
4.4 Assessment Screening of Support Structure In this Appendix calculations check the supporting W12 section against the crane beam end forces. As the preexisting beam utilization is unknown a value of 60% is assumed (which is very conservative). th
The code check results (per AISC 9 ) show that under peak crane beam reaction shear forces little effect to the overall W12 section utilization is observed.
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 8
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
5 REFERENCES
1.
Total Crane Services, “Lanxess Monorail Upgrade”, AFC Drawing Set, Revision 2, 15-Aug-2013.
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 9
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
Appendix A Monorail Beam Design Calcu lation s
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 10
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
Appendix B Connection Calculations
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 11
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
Appendix C Suppor ting Struct ure Screening Assessment
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 12
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
Appendix D Design & Analysis Assoc iated to Utilization of Monorail Suppor t Frami ng as a Resul t of Updated Stru ctu ral Layout Data Provid ed by t he Client
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 13
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
D.1
Background
The client has indicated that the original framing layouts considered for the design of the monorail crane beam is not consistent with the “as-is” structural configuration observed at the facility. The client has indicated that the length of the W12x45 beams (supporting the monorail) and the spacing of columns attached to the W12x45 beams are substantially larger than originally considered in the design (see Figure D.1 below). In addition to the updated structural information the client has indicated that the monorail crane beam working load limit (WLL) can be reduced to 3,700 lbs (i.e., 3.7 kips or 1.85 tons).
Figure D.1 – True confi guration o f W12x45 monorail sup port beams and associated columns
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 14
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
D.2
Updated Analysis
Although the crane beam WLL is now smaller than originally considered, the unsupported length of the monorail support beam (i.e., the W12x45) is substantially longer than that originally considered. As such, further calculations are required to check the adequacy of the support beam under the peak monorail reaction forces. Updated calculations indicate that a 3,700 lb WLL will result in a 5.32 kip peak crane beam reaction force (updated crane reaction limits are presented in Figure D.2). The updated geometry and new crane reaction force was considered in further AISC design code checks for the W12x45 support beam. Conservative assumptions have been made to account for the load added by the hanging catwalks (each assumed to load 1000 lbs to the beam).
Figure D.2 – New mon orail hook load and max/min suppo rt reaction forc es
D.3
Results
Design calculations (presented in the following pages) indicate that even with the conservative hanger load assumption the beam is o nly utilized to 53% (i.e., still retains nearly 47% capacity). With this amount of excess capacity it is very reasonable to assume that it will not be over utilized if pre-existing design loads were introduced.
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 15
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 16
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 17
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 18
Lanxess Corporation Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary
Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1 Issue Date: 8/22/2013
Page 19
